Advertisement

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 409–419 | Cite as

Study of seismic response characteristics of building frame models using shake table test and considering soil–structure interaction

  • Madan KumarEmail author
  • S. S. Mishra
Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

External forces such as earthquake, wind, and blast lead to the deformation of the ground as well as of the supported structures. Ignorance of the influence of soil–structure interaction (SSI) could lead to unsafe design of structures founded particularly on soft soils. To understand the performance of a multi-storey building with varying heights, foundation types, and pile depths under the influence of SSI, a shake table test with earthquake excitation was considered necessary. In this paper, results of a series of shake table test performed on scaled multi-storey building frame models subjected to El-Centro earthquake are presented. The testing was carried out on three building frame models of four, six, and eight storeys. Acceleration, displacement, natural frequency, and damping ratio of the frame models as influenced by the following attributes have been investigated: (1) varying building heights; (2) SSI and fixed base; (3) different types of foundation systems viz. isolated, mat, and pile foundations; and (4) varying pile depths. The experimental investigations considering the SSI effects show that the natural frequency and damping ratio depend on the foundation system of the frame models. It is also observed that the natural frequency and damping ratio decrease with the increase in height of frame model. The investigations show that the pile foundation offers least lateral displacement of the frame models as compared to the isolated and the mat foundations. Empirical formulas are extracted from the test results to estimate the damping.

Keywords

Shake table test Soil–structure interaction Multi-storeyed frame model Foundation types Time period Damping ratio 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all the authors the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Badry, P., & Satyam, N. (2016). Seismic soil structure interaction analysis for asymmetrical buildings supported on piled raft for the 2015 nepal earthquake. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2016.03.014.Google Scholar
  2. California (1940). El Centro NS component. http://www.vibrationdata.com/elcentro_NS.dat.
  3. Chau, K. T., Shen, C. Y., & Guo, X. (2009). Nonlinear seismic soil-pile-structure interactions: shaking table tests and fem analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29, 300–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, M. C., Astroza, R., Restrepo, J. I., et al. (2017). Predominant period and equivalent viscous damping ratio identification for a full-scale building shake table test. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 46, 2459–2477.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chopra, A. K. (1995). Dynamics of structure. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs. ISBN 0-13-855214-2.Google Scholar
  6. Chu, D, Truman, K. Z. (2004) Effects of pile foundation configurations in seismic soil-pile-structure interaction. In: 13th World Conf Earthq Eng Paper No. 1551.Google Scholar
  7. Durante, M. G., Di Sarno, L., Sica, S., et al (2013) Seismic pile-soil interaction: Experimental results vs. numerical simulations. ECCOMAS Themat Conf—COMPDYN 2013 4th Int Conf Comput Methods Struct Dyn Earthq Eng Proc—An IACM Spec Interes Conf 1218–1229.Google Scholar
  8. Gallipoli, M. R., Mucciarelli, M., & Vona, M. (2009). Empirical estimate of fundamental frequencies and damping for Italian buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38, 973–988.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ge, Q., Xiong, F., Zhang, J., & Chen, J. (2016). Shaking table test of dynamic interaction of soil—high-rise buildings. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 21, 249–271.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2015.1110057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hokmabadi, A. S., Fatahi, B., & Samali, B. (2015). Physical modeling of seismic soil-pile-structure interaction for buildings on soft soils. International Journal of Geomechanics, 15, 04014046.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hosseinzadeh, N., Davoodi, M., Rayat Roknabadi, E. (2012) Shake Table Study of Soil Structure Interaction Effects in Surface and Embedded Foundations. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE).Google Scholar
  12. Indian Standard. IS 808 : 1989 Dimensions for hot rolled steel beam, column, channel and angle sections. 1989.Google Scholar
  13. Indian Standard. IS : 1498—1970, Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes, bureau of indian standards, New Delhi (ReaffIrmed 2007). 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Kampitsis, A. E., Giannakos, S., Gerolymos, N., & Sapountzakis, E. J. (2015). Soil-pile interaction considering structural yielding: Numerical modeling and experimental validation. Engineering Structures, 99, 319–333.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lu, X., Chen, Y., Chen, B., & Li, P. (2002). Shaking table model test on the dynamic soil-structure interaction system. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luo, C., Yang, X., Zhan, C., et al. (2016). Nonlinear 3D finite element analysis of soil-pile-structure interaction system subjected to horizontal earthquake excitation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.02.005.Google Scholar
  17. Mishra, S. S. (2017). Time period estimation of rc frame buildings through soil stiffness modeling. Journal of The Institution of Engineers, 98, 303–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-017-0224-0.Google Scholar
  18. Sáez, E., Lopez-Caballero, F., & Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi, A. (2013). Inelastic dynamic soil-structure interaction effects on moment-resisting frame buildings. Engineering Structures, 51, 166–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.01.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saha, R., Dutta, S. C., & Haldar, S. (2015). Seismic response of soil-pile raft-structure system. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21, 144–164.  https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.802716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. SeismoSignal v.4.3.0. Seismosoft Ltd. (2011). http://www.seismosoft.com. Accessed July 2018.
  21. Tabatabaiefar, S. H. R., Fatahi, B., & Samali, B. (2014). Numerical and experimental investigations on seismic response of building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Advances in Structural Engineering, 17, 109–130.  https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.17.1.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tabatabaiefar, H. R., & Massumi, A. (2010). A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30, 1259–1267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tang, L., Maula, B. H., Ling, X., & Su, L. (2014). Numerical simulations of shake-table experiment for dynamic soil-pile-structure interaction in liquefiable soils. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 13, 171–180.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014-0221-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turan, A., Hinchberger, S. D., & El Naggar, H. (2009). Design and commissioning of a laminar soil container for use on small shaking tables. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29, 404–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic soil-structure interaction (p. 07632). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyPatnaIndia

Personalised recommendations